Inflation stays high – but we have a new scapegoat
Share this post:
Inflation – that charmless hobgoblin that takes your weekly shopping list, sprinkles it with price shocks, and leaves you wondering whether you accidentally bought gold instead of butter.
This month’s inflation figure is stubbornly high, at 3.8 per cent – and the culprit is clear, if you read the fine print: the Chancellor’s policies.
Rachel Reeves raised employers’ National Insurance Contributions and nudged the minimum wage upward in what she intended to be seen as a laudable gesture.
But in the real world, businesses – including grocery stores – pass those extra pennies directly on to you.
The price of beef is up 25 per cent; butter 19 per cent; chocolate 15 per cent. And before you ask: yes – the chocolate includes your modest afternoon consolations, now priced like imported jewellery.
Remember last month’s scapegoat? “Good weather” supposedly pushed up food prices and air fares.
Now, weather is off the hook; it’s domestic policy taking the rap.
It’s almost as though the government enjoys pointing the finger at a convenient scapegoat while ordinary families shoulder the burden.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England ponders a change in interest rates, but is unlikely to do anything at all – trusting that relief will come in its own time. And the rest of us suffer the price consequences.
The politicians persist in their theatre. Reeves insists she is “bringing costs down”, in spite of the abundance of evidence to the contrary. Conservatives wag fingers at Labour for “stoking inflation.” Liberal Democrats call for heroic interventions on energy bills.
And ordinary people, who neither fly to the sun nor lobby in Whitehall, pay the price.
The story is unchanged. The villains swap costumes – weather, tax, wages – but the victims remain the same.
Families clutch their shopping receipts as if they were talismans against the unseen forces that govern their wallets.
And the excuse-makers, in Westminster and Whitehall, continue their dance, pretending that rising beef and chocolate are somehow beyond their control.
Share this post:
Has Windsor been Trumped? Royal sparkle aims to distract from the political muck
Share this post:
US President Donald Trump has been in the United Kingdom on a historic second state visit. Has it lifted the national mood? Let’s hear from our special commentator, Mr Jive Clames:
If one were to compose a scene of ceremonial splendour, one might be tempted to set it in the Louvre, the Met, or perhaps a particularly ambitious wedding planner’s fever dream. Instead, the United Kingdom offered Windsor Castle — a stone stage for the second state visit of United States President Donald Trump.
The pomp was plentiful, the carriages ornate, the flypasts only partially grounded by drizzle, and the military lines longer than a supermarket queue in Soviet Moscow.
King Charles, seemingly enjoying the thrill of meeting a foreign leader who comes from his beloved Scotland, greeted The Donald with all the warmth of a man who knows tradition is heavy – and his guest might throw it all away at any moment and declare himself “King of Windsor.”
First Lady Melania, Tiffany-adorned and calm, was pressed into service alongside that picture of poise the Princess of Wales, exchanging smiles and gifts with the kind of precision usually reserved for drone strikes.
Trump took to the occasion with an enthusiasm undimmed by the Royal advice to beware of ceremonial swords. He admired St George’s Chapel, saying, “What a place, what a place”. The King confirmed that it was indeed a place.
Pausing over historic documents long enough to establish that he can’t read Old English, The Donald saved face by sprinkling in praise for The King as if auditioning for the role of Royal Master of Ceremonies. Or should that be Court Jester?
But behind the filtered smiles and ceremonial parades, the UK’s facade of calm ceremony has been hiding a boiling pot surrounded by politicians straining to keep the lid on.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer was supposed to orchestrate the grand finale, juggling the state visit, plans for his first in-government party conference, and the kind of domestic crises that would have turned him grey – if he wasn’t grey already.
Lord Peter Mandelson had been dispatched in ignominy after his own historic documents – letters to the late paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein – surfaced just days before this visit by another friend of Epstein. The King’s own brother was also – embarrassingly – connected with that person, so perhaps we can be reassured that this was one subject that was not raised in casual conversation at the ceremonial banquet.
Angela Rayner had resigned over a £40,000 stamp duty ‘miscalculation’, and Paul Ovenden’s intimate digital ‘missteps’ only added to the perception that Downing Street has been conducting business with the same discipline as a drunk on roller skates, herding wild cats.
Witnessing Trump’s parade of pomp and ceremony – coupled with a US technological investment worth £31 billion to … someone – may have been like enjoying a glass of Chateau Margaux while the kitchen explodes in the background.
Starmer’s government, meanwhile, was left to hope that no one noticed the cracks widening inside Windsor’s walls — although four audacious souls did project the Trump-Epstein connection onto the outside of those same walls, perhaps as a subtle reminder , in politics as in royal protocol, optics are everything.
Windsor delivered its spectacle. Trump was duly flattered, the Royals smiled, the media cheered, and Starmer’s government survived for a day or two.
Pageantry can mask fragility, but only until the next crisis rings the bell. And in Westminster, the crises aren’t just lining up – they’re forming a conga.
Share this post:
“Co-production” — when words hide cruelty
Share this post:
When ministers talk about welfare reform, they love words that sound gentle: sustainability, fairness, co-production.
Those words suggest balance and partnership.
But what happens when the words are just a cover?
That’s exactly what campaigners fear is happening with the so-called “co-production” of changes to Personal Independence Payment (PIP).
Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) warned from the start that the review would not be open, transparent, or inclusive. And the signs suggest that were right.
Instead of a wide, independent panel, the review is being run by a small hand-picked group under ministerial control.
Meetings are secret.
Minutes aren’t published.
And the outcomes already look pre-written: measures that push disabled people into greater hardship, justified by claims of “efficiency” and “incentives”.
Behind the jargon, lives are at stake.
The government’s own projections admit that reforms could push tens of thousands below the poverty line.
Campaigners say real co-production would mean disabled people in the majority, independent oversight, and full transparency.
Without those, “co-production” becomes little more than a fig leaf for cruelty.
This month’s Whip Line pamphlet digs into how the process was stacked and what the changes will mean for real people. Because words matter — but actions matter more.
Find the full exposé in The Whip Line – August 2025, out this Saturday.
Share this post:
New evidence on Charlie Kirk shooting raises more questions than it answers
Share this post:
Two comments I’ve received on Vox Political’s coverage of Charlie Kirk’s killing give a flavour of the mood online right now.
One says:
“What is coming out now in the expanded investigation of Tyler Robinson’s murderous act on Charlie Kirk is indicating that what this blogger is saying in this video about Robinson not being a diehard leftist is baloney!”
Another insists:
“Well, it’s all verified now. The fact that a left wing shooter has to KILL A FATHER, HUSBAND, AMD SON IS BEYOND INSANE.”
Both claim it is already settled fact that the 22-year-old suspect, Tyler Robinson, was a left-wing extremist who killed Kirk for political reasons.
But that is not what the evidence shows — not yet.
What prosecutors actually said
At a press conference in Utah this week, county attorney Jeffrey Gray unveiled what he called “a trove of evidence” against Robinson. He cited:
-
A hidden note Robinson allegedly left under his roommate’s keyboard saying he planned to “take out Charlie Kirk”.
-
Text messages in which he allegedly admitted the shooting to the same roommate, describing it as retaliation against Kirk’s “hatred”.
-
Alleged remarks to his parents hinting at involvement.
-
DNA allegedly found on the trigger of the rifle believed to have been used.
Prosecutors also described Robinson as having become more political in recent years, with stronger support for gay and transgender rights, and pointed to his relationship with a transgender partner.
That is what commentators online are seizing upon as “proof” that Robinson was left-wing.
But here’s the problem:
None of this has yet been tested in court. Robinson has not entered a plea. His defence team has not had a chance to challenge the alleged note, text messages, or DNA.
More importantly, prosecutors themselves declined to say whether Kirk was targeted because of his views on transgender issues — stressing that this was “for a jury to decide”.
In other words: the political motive remains alleged, not proven.
What counts as “left-wing” in Utah?
There’s also a bigger cultural question: even if Robinson did support LGBTQ+ rights and oppose Kirk’s brand of conservatism, does that automatically make him “left-wing”?
In Utah — one of the most conservative states in the United States — simply expressing support for gay or trans rights can be seen as a radical political stance. But in most democracies, that wouldn’t necessarily count as “diehard leftism”.
It’s worth asking: is the “left-wing shooter” narrative about Robinson based on his actual politics, or on the perception of what “left” means in a deeply conservative environment?
So far, what we have are allegations, not verified facts.
Prosecutors are making their case to the media as much as to the courts.
That doesn’t mean Robinson is innocent — but it does mean we should be wary of people online insisting the matter is already proven and that political labels can be applied without question.
Until a jury hears the evidence, the most accurate description is still: Tyler Robinson is accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. The motive remains disputed.
Share this post:
£22 billion AI deal: big hype for little gain
Share this post:
Wow – the UK is supposed to be benefiting from a £31 billion “Tech Prosperity Deal”, timed to coincide with Donald Trump’s state visit. But will we?
Microsoft will invest £22 billion in AI infrastructure, including a new supercomputer in Essex. Google, Nvidia, OpenAI, and others are also pledging billions.
But scratch the surface and the picture is far less rosy.
Despite the headlines about economic growth and “highly skilled jobs,” the direct financial benefit to the UK is minimal.
The bulk of the investment is in private-sector infrastructure, research, and hardware — not cash handed to the Treasury for the prosperity of the nation.
Payroll taxes from new jobs and business rates may trickle in, but this will amount to a fraction of the billions being invested.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and other tech bosses are painting AI as a miracle for UK GDP, comparing it to the rise of the personal computer.
But there is no guarantee of better pay for UK programmers or protections for public funds.
The Digital Services Tax — which raises around £800m a year from US tech firms — was explicitly excluded from the deal.
Meanwhile, the energy costs of massive data centres are likely to be borne by UK taxpayers or the national grid, even as US companies reap the profits.
Groups like Foxglove have warned that the UK could end up footing the bill for the “colossal amounts of power” AI infrastructure requires.
So this deal is great news for Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, and OpenAI, but the real gains for ordinary UK citizens are limited – if there are indeed any at all.
Thousands of high-skilled jobs will be created, yes — but that represents a tiny slice of the population, concentrated in certain regions.
The Treasury sees only a trickle from the investment, while the hype suggests a windfall that simply isn’t coming.
The government’s messaging frames this as a technological breakthrough and a job creation miracle.
The reality is a financial bonanza for US investors, falsely dressed up as a UK economic triumph.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
